1. Khyber Medical University, KPK, Pakistan: rabiasaeed99@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: rabiasaeed99@gmail.com

Keywords: academic honesty, undergraduate, students, Pakistan

1. INTRODUCTION

Upholding one’s intellectual integrity is essential to professionalism [1]. Professionalism should be incorporated throughout the curriculum; it should be taught and assessed [2]. Both domestically and abroad, a number of instances of plagiarism, dishonesty, and unethical behavior involving Pakistani medical graduates have been documented [3]. To highlight the need for improvement, it is critical to evaluate the situation of academic integrity as it stands today. Student academic misconduct is becoming a bigger problem in higher education. Surprisingly, more than 80% of college and university students think that cheating is required in order to progress [4]. Around 70% of college and university students now admit to cheating, according to the Centre for Academic Integrity. Furthermore, estimates from the present suggest that since the 1990s, there has been a five-fold increase in significant cheating on state university campuses. Depending on the exact offense and reporting period, students in the health sciences self-report academic misconduct at a rate that varies from 2% to roughly 60% [5–11]. The figures given in health sciences education most likely overestimate the problem because a much larger proportion of participants usually report having “heard about” or witnessed other people breaking the law. When plagiarism was examined more closely, a study by Roig revealed that more than one-third of college and university students committed this type of academic dishonesty [12] and that up to one in six students in some classes plagiarized all or most of the research papers [13]. The most prevalent type of academic misconduct, according to students studying allied health, is plagiarism [14]. Seven out of ten medical students said they have thought about or really considered stealing content from other sources without providing acknowledgment. A recent controlled study found significant evidence of an average 19% plagiarism rate in essays authored by medical students based on source articles [14]. The increase in “cut and paste” plagiarism on the Internet has made this problem more complicated; since 1999, it has multiplied four times.  Regrettably, there has also been a rise in recent years in the illegal promotion of students to utilize the Internet for plagiarism; students may currently download and purchase “research papers” from more than 250 online paper mills [15].  Thousands more books are available on health as well. Teachers in the public and health sectors should be especially concerned about these allegations because they are alarming. In order to stop academic dishonesty and other types of misbehavior in learning environments, both parties should be involved. Originally recognized as exclusive to business education, this problem is now being acknowledged as potentially present in allied health sciences [15, 16]. Certainly, one of the main causes of some academic misconduct is the fact that different students have diverse definitions of what behavior is inappropriate and what constitutes misconduct [20]. For example, nearly seventy-five percent of students think that copying and pasting text from the Internet is not a big deal. As a result, students need to be more conscious of the actions that constitute academic misconduct [21]. In this regard, comprehensive policies that include precise definitions and examples of plagiarism, falsification, cheating, and other related behaviors may be beneficial. However, concentrating only on the unfair behavior encourages negative, legalistic restrictions at the expense of morally righteous duties. Because of this, it is essential to explain to students not just what is forbidden but also why maintaining rigorous standards of academic integrity is critical in the health sciences [22–24]. Our study’s declared goal was “to determine the status of academic integrity among undergraduate students of Allied Health Sciences at Khyber Medical University.” Because of this study, we will be able to understand the components of academic integrity and dishonesty. As a result, it can serve as a guide for future planning and decision-making by medical facility administration. Because of this, the vast majority of educational institutions ensure that all entering students have completed an academic integrity training course that explains the meaning of academic integrity, its importance, and how to identify and refrain from violating its tenets. This type of education is based on the well-known preventive concept, “the more we educate, the less we investigate,” as established by the USMA Cadet Honour Committee. This type of integrity training is usually web-based and standalone. However, in order to incorporate moral development, courses that emphasize academic integrity as a key subject and are essential for professional ethics can be added to the curriculum [25–27]. Information literacy classes may, where appropriate, incorporate a module on ethical writing and providing students with acceptable sources. A student who is information literate can access and use information in an ethical and lawful manner, as well as comprehend many of the economic, legal, and social issues that surround its use. These courses ought to ideally be founded on the relevant outcomes and performance indicators for this standard [28, 29]. Our study’s objective is to evaluate the academic integrity of undergraduate students.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The topic of putting immediate gains ahead of morality or ethics arises at this period of significant upheaval. Academic institutions are impacted by this problem as well. It is well known that moral values are developed in a child’s home before being instructed in an official school environment. These educational establishments are crucial to the advancement of morally upright societies and morally upright people [30]. Based on published studies, academic dishonesty is becoming increasingly prevalent across all educational levels. Since information technology (wireless, smart phones, the internet, etc.) entered the education sector, the issue has gotten worse. This has led to the observation that “academic dishonesty” is spreading and starting to affect students at all educational levels [31]. Scholarly dishonesty, as defined by pertinent literature, encompasses any unethical behavior, such as mistreating test administrators verbally or physically, falsifying exam results, stealing answer keys, trading exam papers, cheating, and acting contrary to exam regulations and procedures [32]. According to the relevant literature [33], there are several reasons why academic dishonesty occurs, such as the need for excellent marks, social issues and adaption disorder, gender issues, insufficient self-control, a lack of confidence, the thrill of breaking the rules, and time restrictions. Research on academic dishonesty, both domestically and abroad, suggest that dishonest behavior is also influenced by the environment in the classroom. It has been discovered that students from individualist cultures are less prone than those from collectivist settings to commit academic dishonesty [34]. Moreover, it has been noted that female students are less prone to act unethically than male students [35]. As per the literature, there exist differences based on professional groups. Academic dishonesty can also be linked to problems with the learning environment, course-specific problems, pressure to pass the class, laziness, time restrictions, personality factors, study methods, and evaluation systems [36, 37]. Although it is acknowledged that there isn’t much study available right now on how to spot academic dishonesty in higher education, colleges nonetheless frequently deal with this issue [38]. Even though most students are aware that it is unethical to cheat in college and that doing so will have consequences, a research found that a sizable portion of students still think that cheating on examinations is acceptable in society [39]. The moral principles and ethical applications that come with working with people form the cornerstone of allied health sciences. Globally, there are several ethical standards and rules that apply to nursing. It is an indisputable fact that nursing students will acquire a greater understanding of standards and ethical concepts in the classroom. Turkish training programs include ethics and deontology courses to teach professionals about ethical standards and guidelines in nursing education. Nursing students’ professional identities will surely be developed in the classroom and on an individual basis if they adopt and apply moral values [40]. Maintaining academic integrity has always been a challenge for higher education institutions as well as individual faculty members [41]. Higher education institutions typically publish public statements outlining their policies regarding academic integrity, along with the consequences for violating them and the steps that staff, administrators, and students need to take when a policy is broken. These guidelines are usually found in the handbooks for professors and students, which are now usually accessible online at institutions. Faculty members frequently cite or allude to the university policies in their course syllabi [42]. Various forms of student cheating seem to be becoming more commonplace despite these measures [43]. Despite the fact that these Pacific figures vary, the preponderance of study to date has shown that over 50% of undergraduate students self-report cheating. In graduate business and education programs, plagiarism and other forms of cheating are also prevalent [44, 45]. Studies on cheating that are published on often encompass a wide range of behaviors. This essay concentrates on plagiarism, a specific form of academic dishonesty that affects business professionals, business students, and teachers. Though it did not address plagiarism, some studies has found remarkably diverse views of what behavior counts as academic dishonesty. Graduate business students in the United States and Poland were found to have significant differences in their perceptions of faculty and students, as well as in the reported rates of cheating, student definitions of cheating, and the role of faculty in discouraging cheating [46]. As was previously mentioned, recognizing some forms of plagiarism might be difficult. Given the diversity of today’s workforce with regard to social, racial, educational, and professional backgrounds, employers must recognize and take into account each employee’s unique approach to plagiarism [47]. An essay titled “Fostering Research Integrity in Europe” was produced in 2010 by a forum of European Science Foundation (ESF) member organizations in an effort to increase awareness of research integrity and its constituent parts both domestically and internationally. An worldwide panel of experts in Europe and beyond developed a structural framework for excellent scientific practises as a result of this publication. The panel presented a set of guidelines for proper research practices, a framework emphasizing the importance of maintaining research integrity, a code of conduct, and an illustration of scientific misconduct (SMC). It was based on the definition provided by the Medical Research Council (MRC), which states that scientific misconduct encompasses fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and deception in the proposal, execution, or reporting of research findings, in addition to deliberate, risky, or careless deviations from established procedures when conducting research. It includes following established procedures when doing so places people, other animals, or the environment at too high danger of harm. It also includes supporting research misconduct when others participate in it or hide it from view. This statement states that outstanding scientific work requires adherence to the integrity norms of fairness, duty of care, open communication, impartiality-independence, objectivity, reliability, and honesty; violations of these values lead to SMC.  This article defines “scientific misconduct” as actions that violate integrity principles, which are further outlined in the ESF report.

3. CONCLUSION

A detailed discussion about academic integrity was undertaken in order to understand the social, cultural, psychological, economic, and familial issues linked with it. The role that students play as assets of academic organizations was also thoroughly discussed through a review of the supporting literature. We have also looked at the gaps in the literature and given a thorough explanation of the investigation’s goal.

REFERENCES

1. McCabe DL. It Takes a Village: Academic Dishonesty & Educational Opportunity. Liberal education. 2005;91(3):26-31.
2. Chandratilake MN. Development and validation of an inventory (Dundee Barometer of Institutional Professionalism) to measure the professionalism culture of medical schools in the UK: University of Dundee; 2013.
3. Elkin K, Spittal MJ, Studdert DM. Risks of complaints and adverse disciplinary findings against international medical graduates in Victoria and Western Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2012;197(8):448.
4. Kleiner C, Lord M. The cheating game. US News & World Report. 1999;127(20):54-63.
5. Anderson RE, Obenshain SS. Cheating by students: findings, reflections, and remedies. Academic Medicine. 1994;69(5):323-32.
6. Heron R. Cheating in medical school: a survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Acad Med. 1996;71:Z67-Z73.
7. Brown DL. Cheating Must Be Okay—Everybody Does It! Nurse Educator. 2002;27(1):6-8.
8. Dans PE. Self-reported cheating by students at one medical school. Academic Medicine. 1996;71(1):S70-2.
9. Stimmel B, Yens D. Cheating by medical students on examinations. The American journal of medicine. 1982;73(2):160-4.
10. Rennie SC, Crosby JR. Are “tomorrow’s doctors” honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. Bmj. 2001;322(7281):274-5.
11. Falleur D. An investigation of academic dishonesty in allied health: incidence and definitions. Journal of allied health. 1989;19(4):313-24.
12. Roig M. Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? The Psychological Record. 1997;47(1):113.
13. Ryan JJ. Student plagiarism in an online world. ASEE prism. 1998;8(4):20.
14. Bilić-Zulle L, Frković V, Turk T, Ažman J, Petrovečki M. Prevalence of plagiarism among medical students. Croatian medical journal. 2005;46(1).
15. Sims RL. The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business. 1993;68(4):207-11.
16. Nonis S, Swift CO. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for business. 2001;77(2):69-77.
17. Hilbert GA. Involvement of nursing students in unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. Journal of Professional Nursing. 1985;1(4):230-4.
18. [ Scanlan CL. Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity and minimize student cheating and plagiarism. Journal of allied health. 2006;35(3):179-85.
19. Paton J. Cheating at medical school. Main impact of cheating is on clinical work. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2001;322(7281):298-.
20. Higbee JL, Thomas PV. Student and faculty perceptions of behaviors that constitute cheating. NASPA Journal. 2002;40(1):39-52.
21. Holloway I, Galvin K. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
22. Pulvers K, Diekhoff GM. The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Education. 1999;40(4):487-98.
23. Redman BK, Caplan AL. Improving research misconduct policies. EMBO reports. 2017;18(4):511-4.
24. McCabe DL, Butterfield KD, Trevino LK. Faculty and academic integrity: The influence of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. Research in Higher Education. 2003;44(3):367-85.
25. Glick SM. Cheating at medical school: Schools need a culture that simply makes dishonest behaviour unacceptable. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2001;322(7281):250.
26. Hoyer PJ, Booth D, Spelman MR, Richardson CE. Clinical cheating and moral development. Nursing outlook. 1990;39(4):170-3.
27. Tankersley KC. Academic integrity from a student’s perspective. Journal of Dental Education. 1997;61(8):692-93.
28. College Ao, Libraries R, Association AL. Information literacy competency standards for higher education: ACRL; 2000.
29. Zapalska AM, McCarty M. Strategy for Information Literacy Development: Management Undergraduate Program at US Coast Guard Academy. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal. 2017;4(11).
30. Babu TA, Joseph NM, Sharmila V. Academic dishonesty among undergraduates from private medical schools in India. Are we on the right track? Medical teacher. 2011;33(9):759-61.
31. Nitterhouse D. Plagiarism–Not Just an“Academic”Problem. Teaching Business Ethics. 2003;7(3):215-27.
32. Gaberson KB, editor Academic dishonesty among nursing students. Nursing Forum; 1997: Wiley Online Library.
33. Levy ES, Rakovski CC. Academic dishonesty: A zero tolerance professor and student registration choices. Research in Higher Education. 2006;47(6):735-54.
34. Broeckelman-Post MA. Faculty and student classroom influences on academic dishonesty. IEEE Transactions on Education. 2008;51(2):206-11.
35. Pooja Agarwal & Komal Mishra. Examining the Long-Term Effects of Breastfeeding on Infants’ Neurocognitive and Gross Development. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(02):72-78.
36. Tahir Jamil & Shamsa Mansha. Systematic Literature Review on Responsiveness and Readiness after Flooding: A Local Studyn. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(02):35-41.
37. Muhammad Ayan & Ayesha Pervaiz Cheema. Patients’ Perceptions of Post-Mastectomy Mammary Reconstruction: Contributing Variables. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(02):42-49.
38. Mutahara Ahsan & Mashal Ali. Systematic Literature Review on Individuals’ Satisfaction of Existence Affected by Bipolar Disorder. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(02):50-56.
39. Anand Gopal & Nandita Shetty. Literature Review on Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Mometasone Furoate 0.1% Gel Versus Mometasone Furoate 0.1% Cream and Adapalene Gel 0.1%. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(02):57-71.
40. Akbulut Y, Uysal Ö, Odabasi HF, Kuzu A. Influence of gender, program of study and PC experience on unethical computer using behaviors of Turkish undergraduate students. Computers & Education. 2008;51(2):485-92.
41. Crittenden VL, Hanna RC, Peterson RA. The cheating culture: A global societal phenomenon. Business Horizons. 2009;52(4):337-46.
42. Arhin AO, Jones KA. A multidiscipline exploration of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty: Are nursing students different from other college students? Nurse education today. 2009;29(7):710-4.
43. Park C. In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students–literature and lessons. Assessment & evaluation in higher education. 2003;28(5):471-88.
44. Arslantas C, Acar G. Perceptions of academic and business dishonesty among senior level students. Management. 2008;19(60):32-49.
45. O’Sullivan AJ, Toohey SM. Assessment of professionalism in undergraduate medical students. Medical Teacher. 2008;30(3):280-6.
46. Simpson D. Academic dishonesty: An international student perspective. Academic Perspectives in Higher Education. 2016;2(1):5.